guildwarsfandomcom-20200222-history
User talk:BrianG
Feedback on Mt Heart Attack's Current Build I dont have a Ranger anymore to test this out but it looks like a good design. Using extra damage from Shadow Strike to get you foe down to 50% and then having Brutal Strike is a nice combo. If I had a Ranger anymore I'd definitely try this out.— [[User:Azroth|'Azroth']] 13:46, 9 October 2006 (CDT) Feedback on Brian The Vaporizer's Current Build This is basically just the E/any Stone Dagger Renewal as you stated, so I guess any feedback on it would apply to this as well. All in all its a solid build though. Sorry, but I cant think of any monk skills that could be used well with this. If I do I'll let you know.— [[User:Azroth|'Azroth']] 13:46, 9 October 2006 (CDT) ::Thanks for commenting, but yeah, I need to come up with a new idea for this, so there is not much feedback you could provide right now. This character has been slightly neglected lately. I'm open to any secondary profession since there is no theme or anything to this character design. Might try your Touch Elementalist idea. -- BrianG 16:08, 9 October 2006 (CDT) :::Ok, but a touch ranger still works much better as my touch ele has no real defense. As it stands I haven't used that build in a while (or that character come to think of it). I'll most likely change it to the Shatterstone version of Knock 'n Shock after I test out a theory. But by all means feel free to give it a try and improve on it as much as you want.— [[User:Azroth|'Azroth']] 16:31, 9 October 2006 (CDT) ::::Yeah I see what you mean about the defenses, I think I commented on that originally (under the name Mt Heart Attack). I really love the defensive Earth skills (I've been the last one standing in quite a few situations), so I'm thinking whatever I try will be a combination of Earth for defense and something else like Blood. Perhaps an Earth/Blood build without the touch skills, to spam ranged blood spells? If I come up with something interesting I'll let you know. -- BrianG 22:09, 9 October 2006 (CDT) Feedback on Alignak Inukshuk's Current Build Conjure Frost adds amazingly little damage, but the cyclone axe/warriors endurance/ice spikes thing is pretty cool--Zamanee 17:07, 4 December 2006 (CST) :Thanks for the feedback. Conjure Frost doesn't add a ton of damage but it is considerable, especially when it is hitting multiple foes. It used to do less damage but was recently increased. Compare it to something like Signet of Strength, which adds only 5 damage. I used to use that as well before I realized that +5 damage is not worth a skill slot. -- BrianG 11:46, 6 December 2006 (CST) ::Yay! I finally have a Warrior (although I haven't updated my user page to show all my new characters yet one of every profession now :)) so I can give u a review for this guy now. I love the Conjure Frost and the whole combo mentioned above by Zamanee. Frozen Burst is a great skill for snaring all targets around you and has great synergy with this build. Right now I'm playing around with a W/E PBAoE Spike using Double Dragon, Inferno, and Glyph of Lesser Energy. It works well since DD no longer causes Exhaustion and GoLE now affects your next two spells. You might want to consider using GoLE, but as it stands your energy management seems fine so you probably don't need it. Once I'm done perfecting my flame warrior I'll definitely toy around with this. All in all it looks like a great build.— [[User:Azroth|'Azroth']] 23:22, 8 December 2006 (CST) :::Cool thanks for the feedback. I love frozen burst but the long recharge on it kinda makes me jealous of fire's faster recharging PBAoE. I did consider GoLE for this build when it got bumped up, but the problem is that I can't really spare the skill slot. As it is I wish I had room for executioner's strike and disrupting strike. If I wanted to switch to a different Elite though, GoLE would go in for sure. :::I also have some new characters that haven't got added to my page yet, but I still haven't built a mesmer (coming next), assassin, dervish or paragon. Feedback on Spirit Princess San's Current Build Ahhh...This looks familiar. I used to run an almost identical build back when I was in love with spirits. I would use the Rupture Soul variant to solo farm trolls and other melee heavy monsters, or just use the echo doom to run with a team. You should definitely get Echo for this. As you said "Arcane Echo is too expensive". Some of the new Nightfall skills would probably make this a lot better since you focus on offensive spirits. Take a look through them and see if you can come up with a good variant of this for when NF comes out.— [[User:Azroth|'Azroth']] 13:46, 9 October 2006 (CDT) :Thanks for the tips. I'm definitely going to be adding Echo to this, I'm just not far enough in Factions to cap it yet, but I'm planning on getting there this week. I figured other people may have come up with this idea as well, but nobody has posted this build yet so I might. Any suggestions on Spirits? Did you still use Shadowsong with Rupture Soul equipped? I've looked through Nightfall stuff and was kind of disappointed with the Ritualist skills but I'll take a second look. -- BrianG 16:05, 9 October 2006 (CDT) ::Yeah, I still used Shadowsong becuase it could blind targets at a distance before they got to me and then I would just use it as my first bomb. As for Nightfall skills...Anguish and Signet of Might could be good if paired with Painful Bond, but you wouldn't be able to use Echo with it.— [[User:Azroth|'Azroth']] 16:59, 9 October 2006 (CDT) General Comments Eehm, is it me or has the link to your userpage been taken out of your signature? That's far from practical- please put it back in there :) If you need advice on signatures and/or how to make them a bit more fancy, you can just ask me or anyone :) -- Ifer (t/ ) 11:35, 8 October 2006 (CDT) ::Well, I am new here so its possible I have unintentionally messed something up, but I'm not sure I follow what you mean. When I sign a comment, it leaves a link that says BrianG and when you click that, it directs here. The only difference I can see between my signature and yours is that you have the talk and contributions links as well. Maybe I'm not understanding you though, please explain further. Or just let me know what specifically to do to correct it. Thanks. -- BrianG 11:41, 8 October 2006 (CDT) :::I see it's fine now :) I was just reading some build policy discussion, and noticed that in some posts, links were missing. Hence the comment :) You were probably playing with your preferences at the time- there's an option there to enable/disable your signature linking to your userpage. If you would want to add more wikicode there, you might need to disable that option and add the link manually in your signature (that's what I did). -- Ifer (t/ ) 11:45, 8 October 2006 (CDT) ::::Ok great. Thanks for the assistance. I think as soon as I get a chance, I'm going to play around with a more customized signature. I want to choose and add an image of some kind i think. -- BrianG 14:10, 8 October 2006 (CDT) Re: moving articles To move an article, click the "move" link in the control bar on top. Chose a new article name and state the reason for moving. That's how you move articles. If you select an article page (not a talk page) you can move both article and talk in one haul. ~ Nilles (chat) 14:07, 26 October 2006 (CDT) :Awesome, thanks for the super-quick response. I'll take care of moving that build. -- BrianG 14:12, 26 October 2006 (CDT) ::Haha, thanks for catching my mistake, I'm usually not that careless. I guess its a good thing I didn't know how to move yet. ;) -- BrianG 14:34, 26 October 2006 (CDT) NightAngel talk (con't) We see it as an embarassment to the Wiki. Like I've stated before, the Wiki is superior to pretty much every other GW site in general info, including armor pictures/weapon descriptions/boss locations. We fail at builds. You want proof? The W/Mo Life Sheath user was a vetted build before Skuld saved face and deleted it. It was a joke. That's a horrible build, and the fact that it was Vetted is a clue that we're doing something wrong. One of my hopes in moving the build section onto a real build format is to attract more people (hopefully some people from other places, namely GWGuru) to work on the builds. As it stands, GWiki's build section is a joke. Go to GWGuru, post how much you love our build section, and prepare to get flamed into non-existance within a day. The people who flame aren't "haters," they just see what most Wiki users are unable to see; the Wiki build section is, indeed, a joke. -Auron 01:00, 7 December 2006 (CST) :Auron, I definitely understand your perspective, but its not the only perspective. I agree that the current voting system is flawed in that it allows bad builds to be favored before other users have a chance to review them. However there are ways to fix that. I tried to make suggestions in the "build debate" but its hard to get people to listen when everyone has their own idea how things should be done. But I definitely agree with you that the builds section is flawed in that way. The thing that some people don't understand though is that there are different types of people who enjoy playing the game in different types of ways. From a professional player's perspective, I can understand why the build section seems like a joke. But what about the casual players? Or the build tinkerers? From the way you describe gwguru, it doesn't sound like these types of players would feel comfortable there, so where do they belong? Some build ideas are interesting and effective enough to want to share with other users who would also appreciate them. Not all people play at a professional level where any build less than the absolute best build for pvp is laughed at. Now obviously it matters how effective the build is, and I'm not trying to say that bad builds should be favored just cause they work for casual play. I do understand that the line has to be drawn somewhere. But I'm just trying to point out that if you are judging builds from the perspective of a professional pvp player, and the build is intended for pve (for example) then you are going to judge the build from the wrong perspective even if you are trying not to. And if you are judging a build section filled with pve and/or experimental builds from that same perspective, its going to look like an embarassment. But that doesn't mean that there are not other types of players who appreciate it. And lastly, who cares what other websites think? I don't get the whole concept of taking it personally and needing to "save face". The people that use the builds section here understand its limitations. When I look at builds (favored or not), I'm just looking for ideas. I take everything with a grain of salt. I take what I like from it and put my own spin on it, or disregard it if I don't like the concept. If someone is just going to copy a build skill-by-skill just because it happens to be in the favored section, they should just head over to gwguru and listen to whatever build the elitists you describe tell them to play. -- BrianG 10:29, 7 December 2006 (CST) ::You have a good point, separating the "professional" level from... "the tinkerers." My point is: it seems GWiki has too many "tinkerers" atm, and not enough people who have played the game and have experience with different skill combinations. For example, I was a PvE nub for eight months - that's longer than a good majority of these people who call me a "PvP meanie." I know PvE; I've done it. A good majority of the "professional" PvPers do PvE as well; in fact, someone is missing out on a good portion of the game by only doing PvP. The big difference between PvE nubs and PvPers is that the PvPers have tried different combinations of skills in different scenarios, and therefore are wiser about them. The PvE person trying the same combo has *never experienced that* before, so when the PvPer tells him the skill combo sucks, he gets offended, even if it sucks. That's not elitist - that's speaking from experience. When I knock a PvE build, it's because I know from experience it'll suck. People argue "oh, well u have a monk in ur party." Yeah my ass, I know how good the average PUG monk is - not good at all. ::So... my hope with the site is to merge the experience of the long-time players (that don't use GWiki's build section... which is the majority of them) with the innovation of the "tinkerers." That way, the junk builds that have good ideas will be turned into good builds based on good ideas, and those become FotM's rather quickly. Win-win situation. -Auron 11:54, 7 December 2006 (CST) ::Hmmm sounds like we are on almost the same page. I've been playing GW for about 6 or 7 months and most of that has been PvE, but I'm starting to learn what works and doesn't work in PvP (RA at least). Ideally I like what you're saying, for the more experienced players to help the tinkerers understand why things may or may not work, and co-operate to turn the junk builds with good ideas into good builds. The only time a problem with this arises is if the more experienced player doesn't have the patience to co-operate to improve something and instead just says it sucks and unfavors it without even making suggestions. Here is a perfect example: Build talk:R/E Fire and Ice. I came across this build and liked the Burning Arrow/Steam combo, but wasn't sure if the rest of the build was ideal. As I was trying to make suggestions to turn this combo into a better build, already 3 people have come along and unfavored it before the author even responded to suggestions. You can see from the discussion that I even tried very hard to coax Skuld to provide an alternate skillbar using this combo, but that failed. So does that mean that the Burning Arrow/Steam combo is unusable? Or just that this build overall is less than ideal? I'm not really sure. This is a good example of why your ideal situation (experienced players helping tinkerers) is failing due to the attitudes of the experienced players. -- BrianG 12:23, 7 December 2006 (CST) :::Yeah... experienced users that don't (want to) spend time working with the tinkerers don't synergize well. -Auron 16:04, 7 December 2006 (CST) ::::Yeah sometimes they don't. I really do think that guildwiki's build section could be "viable", if the policy and process were better designed. I just got too busy to continue to follow the constant debates. When I have more time I'll renew my efforts to suggest changes that could address many of the problems. -- BrianG 00:31, 12 December 2006 (CST) heh, whoops thanks for picking up the shielding hands related skills mistake. Xeon 00:19, 12 December 2006 (CST) :No problem. I just came across that accidentally, and figured it was just out of date info from before nightfall's official launch, didn't even realize you were making changes so recently. funny timing. :) -- BrianG 00:28, 12 December 2006 (CST) Making a build This guide is the coolest thing. If you're still unsure about making a build, or just want to improve as a build crafter, check that page out. It's also useful as a reference tool as you try to improve one specific build; just go down the checklist and the build will improve with each step. -Auron 05:30, 16 December 2006 (CST) :Thanks for the link, there were some helpful tips there. I find I'm pretty good at the technical "on paper" aspects of build making, like finding skills that synergize, making sure the attributes hit the right break points, and focusing the build to the ideal attributes, but my weak spots are more along the lines of knowing what roles are needed in different environments and understanding the metagame. I'm finding it a bit tricky to make the jump from PvE and RA to things like TA and GvG. Its somewhat intimidating to play in an environment where people have expectations for you to fill certain roles and know certain strategies. If you could point me in the direction of any guides for common TA strategies and roles that would be awesome. Thanks! -- BrianG 12:36, 16 December 2006 (CST) Blood Healer Sup. I removed the build stub tag off this build build, so it is now an open season untested build. I hoping it gets some exposure. There are like a million BMagic builds, but none quite the same as this one; none have the same objectives nor pure synergy of the Blood Healer. I think it shows, cuz the discussion page is full of comments, mostly you and I, but a few others too. I noted at the top of the build page that you and I both have been doing the development. Because of the pure number of BMagic builds, and the awesome synergy and efficacy of the D/N variant, I was thinking the concept and purpose of that build would get more exposure if listed as the 'D/N Mystic BiPer' or somthing like that. That would display the builds best strengths, and place it apart from the million mediocre N/any BMagic builds. What do you think? Either one of us could create the page, just as long as both are mentioned as developers (maybe you should create it, since you introduced using a Dervish secondary).--Windjammer 16:48, 16 December 2006 (CST) :Yeah for sure. I still want to play around with it for a couple days and decide what the best n/d skillbar is, and then decide if I want to try D/N. They may both work, and depending on how different the skillbars would be for each, could either go on one page (with switching the primary as a variant), or 2 pages if the skills used were different enough. Oh and in case I didn't clarify enough on the build discussion, based on my PvP testing I'm pretty sure the build would work beautifully in PvE, where a lot of my problems would be reduced. You will always have tanks to take the aggro and will always be able to retreat from the fight. And you'll always have a monk, which works really well for this build. Any time I was with a monk in RA I would tell them to throw any enchants on me if possible to boost my output. Guardian was especially nice. I mainly chose PvP because I was really excited to put my ideas into action. Thanks for providing credit on the build page. If you think the blood healer build is close to finalized you can archive some of our brainstorming, or maybe move it to one of our userpages to keep working on the dervish ideas? -- BrianG 18:15, 16 December 2006 (CST)